Skip to content

Switch from ring to openssl #394

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 26, 2019
Merged

Conversation

pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

@pietroalbini pietroalbini commented Jan 26, 2019

The ring update policy is awful (see briansmith/ring#774), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

📌 Commit 7b58b55 has been approved by pietroalbini

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

⌛ Testing commit 7b58b55 with merge d2e8a48...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2019
Switch from ring to openssl

The ring update policy is awful (see briansmith/ring#774), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

📌 Commit 64c665e has been approved by pietroalbini

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

⌛ Testing commit 64c665e with merge f7fa3f0...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2019
Switch from ring to openssl

The ring update policy is awful (see the ring repo), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

📌 Commit 4d056e2 has been approved by pietroalbini

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

⌛ Testing commit 4d056e2 with merge 9760248...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2019
Switch from ring to openssl

The ring update policy is awful (see the ring repo), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.
@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member Author

@bors p=1 retry r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

📌 Commit f35ed45 has been approved by pietroalbini

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2019
Switch from ring to openssl

The ring update policy is awful (see briansmith/ring#774), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

⌛ Testing commit f35ed45 with merge a3c0c80...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 26, 2019

☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor
Approved by: pietroalbini
Pushing a3c0c80 to master...

@bors bors merged commit f35ed45 into rust-lang:master Jan 26, 2019
@pietroalbini pietroalbini deleted the remove-ring branch January 26, 2019 22:45
@briansmith
Copy link

The ring update policy is awful (see briansmith/ring#774), so this switches to a crate that doesn't break existing builds every time a new version is released.

My understanding is that crates can still depend on yanked crates, based on the discussion in rust-lang/cargo#4111, so my policy shouldn't result in any broken builds, AFAICT. If that's not the case then I think that's a bug in cargo that needs to be resolved.

Definitely I never intended to break anybody's builds; at most I expected people to get warnings about depending on a yanked crate.

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member Author

pietroalbini commented Jan 27, 2019

My understanding is that crates can still depend on yanked crates, based on the discussion in rust-lang/cargo#4111, so my policy shouldn't result in any broken builds, AFAICT. If that's not the case then I think that's a bug in cargo that needs to be resolved.

Builds with a lockfile will indeed continue to work as long as the lockfile is present, but Cargo will refuse to update any dependency until the yanked one is removed from the dependency tree, blocking the development.

Left a more detailed reply in briansmith/ring#774 (comment).

@dwijnand
Copy link
Member

Cargo will refuse to update any dependency until the yanked one is removed from the dependency tree, blocking the development.

I believe that's a bug: rust-lang/cargo#6609

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants